Tlje  Evil  of  Changing  Existing  Laws  iij  Appropriation  Bills. 

SPEECH 

OF 

HOIST.  CHAS.  P.  THOMPSON", 

OF  MASSACHUSETTS, 

In  the  House  of  Representatives,  Thursday,  August  3,  1876. 


The  House  haying  under  consideration  the  re¬ 
port  of  the  committee  of  conference  on  the  disa¬ 
greeing  votes  of  the  two  Houses  on  the  amend¬ 
ments  of  the  Senate  on  the  bill  (H.  R.  No.  1594) 
making  appropriations  for  the  consular  and  dip¬ 
lomatic  service  of  the  Government  for  the  fiscal 
year  ending  June  30, 1877 — 

Mr.  THOMPSON  said : 

Mr.  Speaker  :  We  have  now  arrived  at 
a  point  where  it  can  but  be  profitable  for  us 
to  pause  and  most  carefully  consider  what 
is  the  cause  of  the  defective  workings  of 
our  system  of  legislation.  We  find  that 
general  appropriation  bills  which  ought  to 
have  been  passed  more  than  a  month  ago 
are  suspended  between  the  two  Houses  of 
Congress,  and  in  great  danger  of  not  being 
passed  at  all,  and  the  operations  of  Govern¬ 
ment  stopped  for  want  of  the  necessary 
funds  to  meet  the  necessary  expenses  of  the 
Administration,  and  the  country  also  in 
danger  of  having  changes  in  existing  laws 
effected  in  a  manner  that  is  revolutionary 
and  subversive  of  the  rights  of  the  people. 
What  is  the  cause  of  this  most  alarming 
state  of  things  ?  Is  it  in  the  fact  that  Con¬ 
gress  is  composed  of  two  distinct  and  inde¬ 
pendent  branches  ?  Cannot  the  Govern¬ 
ment  be  carried  on  successfully  with  a  Senate 
and  House  of  Representatives  ?  Have  we  to 
try  again  the  experiment  of  a  single  legis¬ 
lative  body,  which  history  and  experience 
have  found  to  be  a  failure  and  so  unfavor¬ 
able  to  good  government  that  not  a  State 
has  adopted  such  a  system  of  legislation  or 
scarcely  a  city  in  the  whole  country  has  or¬ 
ganized  its  council  upon  that  basis  ? 

I  do  not  believe  for  a  moment  that  any 
one  is  prepared  to  say  that  the  framers  of 
our  Constitution  made  a  mistake  when  they 
provided  in  the  first  article  of  the  Constitu¬ 
tion,  and  in  the  first  section  of  that  article, 
that  “  all  legislative  powers  herein  granted 
shall  be  vested  in  a  Congress  of  the  United 
States,  which  shall  consist  of  a  Senate  and 
House  of  Representatives,”  and  provided 
also  that  each  branch  of  Congress  shall  be 
equal  to  the  other  in  rights,  privileges,  and 
powers  except  where  the  contrary  is  partic¬ 
ularly  specified.  It  is  not  necessary  for  my 
present  purpose  to  enumerate  the  few  par¬ 
ticulars  in  which  their  rights,  powers,  and 


privileges  are  not  the  same.  The  only  ma¬ 
terial  difference  so  far  as  legislation  is  con¬ 
cerned  is  set  forth  in  article  1,  section  7, 
which  is : 

All  bills  for  raising  revenue  shall  originate  in 
the  House  of  Representatives,  but  the  Senate  may 
propose  or  concur  with  amendments  as  on  other 
bins. 

But  it  was  not  intended  that  they  should 
be  equally  susceptible  to  popular  influences. 
The  House  was  so  constituted,  so  organized 
that  it  would  feel  at  once  the  throb  of  the 
popular  heart ;  the  Senate,  so  that  cool  and 
deliberate  action  might  be  insured.  The 
Senate  was  designed  to  be  the  great  con¬ 
servative  force  in  our  system  of  legislation. 
But  I  am  sorry  to  say  that  the  popular  in¬ 
fluences  at  work  have  tended  to  make  the 
two  branches  much  alike,  too  equally  sus¬ 
ceptible  to  the  momentary  popular  influ¬ 
ences.  Sir,  under  our  system  the  popular 
sensation  is  felt  too  soon  in  our  legislation. 
The  workings  of  our  system  of  legislation 
have  developed  the  fact  that  its  checks  and 
balances  are  not  too  great  for  wise  and 
necessary  legislation,  but  are  found  often¬ 
times  to  be  too  small  to  prevent  hasty  and 
ill-matured  legislation.  I  think  this  fact 
will  be  conceded  on  all  sides. 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  if  our  system  of  legis¬ 
lation  is  right,  if  Congress  is  wisely  organ¬ 
ized  with  two  separate  independent  branches 
and  the  system  is  to  be  maintained,  there 
must  be  some  error  in  the  modes  of  legisla¬ 
tion  in  the  one  branch  or  the  other,  or  in 
both,  which  are  to  be  remedied  to  secure 
the  proper  workings  of  the  system.  Let  us 
ask  ourselves  earnestly  and  conscientiously 
whether  we  may  not  be  somewhat  respon¬ 
sible  for  the  imperfect  workings  of  this  sys¬ 
tem  ;  for  if  we  are,  then  it  behooves  us  to 
put  ourselves  right  at  the  earliest  possible 
moment.  The  way  to  obtain  justice  is  to 
do  justice.  The  most  approved  method  of 
inducing  others  to  do  right  is  to  do  right 
ourselves. 

Eor  one,  I  am  fully  convinced  that  this 
House  is  in  fault,  and  that  further  persist¬ 
ence  in  it  will  make  it  criminally  in  fault ; 
that  we  ought  at  once  to  put  ourselves  right. 
I  am  not  going  to  discuss  at  length  at  this 


2 


n....  »  ■  — - .  -  — 

moment  the  effect  of  the  amendment  made 
to  the  one  hundred  and  twentieth  rule  of 
this  House  by  striking  out  all  after  the  word 
“progress  ”  and  adding  thereto,  “nor  shall 
any  provisions  in  any  such  bill  or  amend¬ 
ment  thereto  changing  existing  law  be  in 
order  except  such  as,  being  germane  to  the 
subject-matter  of  the  bill,  shall  retrench  ex¬ 
penditures  ;”  an  amendment  that  I  believed 
most  vicious  in  its  tendencies,  and  against 
which  I  recorded  my  vote  with  the  deepest 
conviction  of  the  correctness  of  that  vote, 
and  observation  and  reflection  have  strongly 
confirmed  the  conviction  I  then  entertained, 
that  the  policy  of  making  it  possible  and 
even  probable  that  the  Committee  on  Ap¬ 
propriations  would  absorb  many  of  the  du¬ 
ties  and  powers  of  nearly  all  the  other  com¬ 
mittees  and  sadly  derange  the  whole  mode 
of  legislative  proceeding  in  this  House,  and 
cause  questions  to  be  considered  alone,  or 
more  particularly  with  reference  to  their 
pecuniary  character,  when  it  might  be  of 
the  first  importance  to  have  them  consid¬ 
ered  in  other  and  widely  different  aspects 
than  that  of  their  immediate  effect  upon  the 
Treasury  of  the  United  States. 

I  know  that  it  has  not  been  unusual  for 
new  legislation  to  be  ingrafted  on  appro¬ 
priation  bills,  for  appropriation  bills  to  con¬ 
tain  legislation  independent  of  “any  ex¬ 
penditure  previously  authorized  by  law  ”  or 
the  “continuation  of  appropriations  for  such 
public  works  and  objects  as  are  already  in 
progress.  ’  ’  And  I  know  not  why  this  House 
should  be  held  more  responsible  for  such 
legislation  than  others,  unless  it  has  carried 
this  wrong  to  a  greater  extent  than  other 
Houses  have  done.  But,  sir,  be  this  as  it 
may,  the  question  now  is  not  as  to  the  expe¬ 
diency  of  that  course,  but  it  is  a  wholly  dif¬ 
ferent  question.  It  is  this  question — a  graver 
one  cannot  be  proposed:  Will  this  House 
demand  and  insist  that  legislation,  which 
under  that  rule  has  been  ingrafted  upon  the 
general  appropriation  bills  changing  exist¬ 
ing  laws,  shall  be  re-instated  and  retained 
in  those  bills  after  they  have  been  stricken 
out  by  the  Senate,  for  the  purpose  of  com¬ 
pelling  the  Senate,  coercing  the  Senate,  to 
adopt  that  new  legislation  or  refuse  to  pro¬ 
vide  funds  for  carrying  on  the  various  de¬ 
partments  of  the  Government?  This  is  the 
question;  and  I  have  no  doubt,  for  one, 
how  this  House  ought  to  answer  it.  This* 
manifest  attempt  at  coercing  a  co-ordinate 
and  equal  branch  of  Congress  is  wholly 
without  justification  or  excilfee.  Much  of 
this  new  legislation  under  the  amendment 
to  that  rule  has  received,  I  regret  to  say, 
my  vote ;  not  that  I  do  not  believe  the  meas¬ 
ures  to  be  sound  and  necessary,  but  on  ac¬ 
count  of  the  mode  in  which  that  new  legis¬ 
lation  passed  the  House,  namely,  as  amend¬ 
ments  to  appropriation  bills ;  and  it  is  not 
only  my  right  but  my  duty  to  speak  and 
act  with  reference  to  the  use,  the  disposition 
that  is  to  be  made  <of  that  legislation. 

I  have  said  tbfl?  duties,  privileges,  and 


powers  of  the  two  Houses  are  equal  in  all 
matters  of  legislation,  except  that  the  House 
of  Representatives  has  the  exclusive  right 
to  originate  bills  for  raising  revenue.  But, 
sir,  this  to  my  mind  is  not  so  much  a  ques¬ 
tion  as  to  what  are  the  relative  rights  of  the 
two  Houses.  The  real  question,  the  impor¬ 
tant  question,  is,  What  are  the  rights  of  the 
people  ?  The  people  have  the  right  to  have 
this  protection ;  that  no  law  shall  be  passed 
affecting  their  rights  unless  it  have  the  con¬ 
current  approval  of  both  Houses  of  Con¬ 
gress,  expressed  separately  and  independ¬ 
ently  of  each  other,  without  interference  or 
coercion.  A  law  must  be  the  separate  judg¬ 
ment  of  the  two  Houses  as  well  as  their 
combined  judgment;  and  unless  it  is,  it  is 
not  the  will  of  the  people  constitutionally 
expressed.  The  will  of  the  people  is  that 
the  Constitution  shall  be  obeyed.  All  laws 
must  not  only  be  enacted  according  to  the 
forms  of  the  Constitution,  but  in  harmony 
with  its  spirit.  The  people  are  now  saying 
to  Congress  in  the  strongest  possible  man¬ 
ner,  “  Pass  no  law  that  has  not  the  full,  fair, 
uncoerced  approval  and  concurrence  of  both 
Houses  of  Congress.”  They  are  saying 
this  through  the  Constitution.  How  can 
they  speak  more  earnestly? 

Legislation  in  this  country  was  designed 
to  be  by  Congress,  and  not  by  either  House 
alone.  If  by  any  means  the  House  and  the 
Senate  are  put  in  a  position  where  they  are 
led  to  trade  with  each  other,  where  one 
measure  which  is  the  favorite  of  the  House 
and  disapproved  of  by  the  Senate,  and  an¬ 
other  measure  which  is  the  favorite  of  the 
Senate  and  disapproved  of  by  the  House, 
and  both  are  passed  by  the  two  Houses  for 
the  reason  that  unless  both  are  neither  can 
be,  I  say  most  emphatically  that  if  both 
measures  are  passed  by  Congress,  they  are; 
in  direct  violation  of  the  spirit  of  the  Con¬ 
stitution.  Neither  ought  to  have  been  en¬ 
acted  by  Congress,  and  the  enacting  of  them 
is  a  most  gross  and  outrageous  fraud  upon 
the  people.  Moreover,  it  is  the  sacred  right 
of  this  House,  the  constitutional  right  of 
the  majority  and  the  minority  of  this  House, 
that  if  a  bill  passes  here,  however  large  its 
majority,  however  necessary  or  important 
it  may  seem  to  be  for  the  advancement  of 
the  prosperity,  honor,  and  glory  of  the 
country — I  repeat,  it  is  the  constitutional 
right  of  the  majority  and  the  minority  to* 
have  the  free,  honest,  and  uncoerced  judg¬ 
ment  of  the  Senate  upon  that  bill  and  every  • 
section  of  it,  and  if  it  does  not  meet  its  ap¬ 
proval  and  concurrence,  to  have  the  bill 
defeated,  so  that  it  shall  not  become  a  law. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  demand  my  constitutional 
right  in  this  matter  ;  I  demand  it  as  a  mem¬ 
ber  of  this  House ;  I  demand  it  in  ihat  higher, 
nobler,  more  commanding  capacity  of  an 
American  citizen — I  demand  that  this  House 
shall  not  attempt  to  coerce  the  Senate  to 
make  any  change  in  existing  laws  by  an  en-  , » 
deavor  to  retain  such  changes  in  the  appropri¬ 
ation  bills  against  the  consent,  the  approval 


V  - 


z>  dC?/ 


S 


of  the  Senate.  I  demand  of  the  Senate  that 
it  shall  not  yield  in  the  slightest  degree  to  any 
influences  from  the  House  which  are  not 
wholly  independent  of  considerations  as  to 
how  much  or  how  little  may  be  gained  for  its 
favorite  measures  by  adopting  the  measures 
proposed  by  the  House.  I  have  the  right 
both  as  a  member  of  this  House  and  as  an 
American  citizen  to  have  the  judgment  of  the 
Senate  upon  the  neccessity,  fitness,  and  pro¬ 
priety  of  the  measures  proposed  by  this  House 
and  each  of  them.  If  one  House  of  Congress 
is  to  control  certain  legislation  and  another 
branch  certain  other  legislation,  we  might  as 
well  divide  the  work ;  let  the  Senate  have  its 
class  of  subjects,  and  the  House  its,  which 
would' work  a  complete  revolution  in  our  sys- 
/  tern  of  government. 

Mr.  Speaker,  let  us  suppose  for  a  moment 
that  a  private  citizen  engaged  in  large  and  im¬ 
portant  transactions  had  come  to  the  conclu¬ 
sion  that  he  would  not  enter  upon  any  new 
enterprise  unless  the  enterprise  should  meet 
with  and  receive  the  unqualified  approval  of 
two  carefully  selected  advisers,  each  forming 
his  opinion  independent  of  the  other ;  and  sup¬ 
pose  further  that  these  chosen  and  trusted  ad¬ 
visers  should  make  an  agreement  that  if  the 
one  would  declare  his  concurrence  in  the  feas¬ 
ibility  of  the  favorite  project  of  the  other,  the 
latter  would  declare  his  concurrence  in  the 
feasibility  of  the  favorite  project  of  the  former, 
when  in  fact  there  was  not  a  mutual  agree¬ 
ment  as  to  the  feasibility  of  either  project, 
and  that  agreement  should  be  carried  out ; 
would  it  not  be  said,  and  most  truthfully  and 
justly  said,  that  a  most  gross  and  wicked 
fraud  had  been  committed  ?  Sir,  in  no  case 
would  that  private  citizen  have  the  real  judg¬ 
ment  of  but  one  of  his  advisers,  and  instead 
of  the  judgment  and  support  of  the  opinion 
of  two  honest  men  with  reference  to  the  en¬ 
terprise,  he  would  have  but  the  opinion  of 
one,  and  that  of  one  who  has  been  guilty  of 
committing  a  most  wicked  fraud  upon  him. 
It  would  be  an  equally  gross  fraud  upon  the 
people  of  this  country  were  the  Senate  and 
the  House  to  meet  through  its  conference 
committees  with  the  purpose  on  the  part  of 
each  of  getting  through  Congress  as  much  of 
legislation  as  possible  that  both  Houses  do 
not  approve,  by  each  conceding  to  the  other 
its  favorite  measures,  and  a  repoit  were  agreed 
upon  and  presented  to  both  Houses  and  rat¬ 
ified  with  a  similar  purpose.  Such  laws,  al¬ 
though  possibly  passed  under  the  letter  of  the 
Constitution,  would  be  passed  in  the  most  di¬ 
rect  and  absolute  violation  of  its  spirit. 

I  have  no  language  in  which  to  express  the 
surprise  with  which  I  have  heard  such  expres¬ 
sions  as  these,  “  The  Senate  has  made  so 
much  and  the  House  has  made  so  much.” 
Sir,  in  the  manner  that  legislation  is  being 
conducted  in  these  appropriation  bills,  noth¬ 
ing  can  be  made  by  the  Senate,  nothing  can 
be  made  by  the  House  ;  but  the  people  may 
lose  everything.  What  it  is  alleged  that  the 
Senate  and  the  House  have  gained  may  be 
only  the  measure  of  what  the  people  have 
lost.  Every  change  in  the  existing  laws  ef¬ 
fected  by  the  necessity  of  having  an  appro¬ 


priation  bill  passed  is  a  change  made  without 
their  consent.  If  done,  the  servants  of  the 
deople  have  consented  that  laws  might 
be  made  practically  by  one  body,  when  they 
had  no  such  power  delegated  to  them.  The 
people  have  the  right  to  have  each  House  of 
Congress  to  guard  and  protect  them  against 
any  errors  or  mistakes  that  may  be  commit¬ 
ted  by  the  other. 

But  it  may  be  said  that  there  is  an  over¬ 
powering  neccessity  for  putting  new  legisla¬ 
tion  upon  these  appropriation  bills,  that  in 
no  other  way  can  the  demand  for  retrench¬ 
ment  be  met  and  the  enormous  expenditures 
of  the  Government  be  reduced  and  brought 
within  reasonable  limits.  Sir,  whatever  may 
be  the  impression  upon  the  minds  of  some, 
there  is  no  such  neccessity  existing.  There 
cannot  be  such  a  neccessity.  The  great  and 
overpowering  neccessity  of  the  present  time 
is  a  strict  observance  on  the  part  of  all  of  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States — its  grants 
and  limitations.  There  can  be  no  sufficient 
cause  shown  or  apology  made  for  a  violation 
of  either  the  letter  or  the  spirit  of  that  sacred 
instrument,  which  is  the  charter  of  our  pow¬ 
ers  and  the  guardian  of  our  liberties.  The 
people  demand  no  reforms  except  those  that 
may  be  made  in  a  constitutional  manner.  It 
is  not  enough  that  certain  retrenchments  seem 
proper  and  just  to  this  House ;  the  people  do 
not  want  them  adopted  until  they  appear 
proper  and  just  to  the  Senate,  and  not  even 
then  unless  two-thirds  of  both  Houses  of  Con¬ 
gress  approve  them  or  the  President  shall  also 
approve  them.  Neither  House  of  Congress 
nor  the  President  alone  can  express  the  will 
of  the  people  upon  subjects  of  legislation. 

Let  us  not  be  too  anxious  about  this  matter. 
This  House  can  only  speak  for  itself.  It  is 
only  responsible  for  its  own  action,  and  the 
Senate  is  equally  responsible  for  its  position, 
and  the  President  for  his.  Let  us  respect  the 
rights  of  each  as  we  expect  each  to  respect 
ours.  We  have  no  right  to  do  otherwise, 
whatever  may  be  our  convictions  as  to  the 
importance  of  the  measures  we  may  be  at¬ 
tempting  to  advance. 

Am  I  asked  what  is  our  duty  at  this  time 
in  relation  to  the  matter  under  consideration  ? 
I  answer,  without  a  doubt  as  to  its  correct¬ 
ness,  unload  at  once  all  the  appropriation  bills 
now  in  any  manner  under  the  control  of  this 
House  of  every  word  changing  existing  laws 
which  has  not  been  approved  of  by  the  Sen¬ 
ate  ;  put  that  new  legislation  before  the  House 
again,  so  far  as  it  is  now  deemed  just  and  es¬ 
sential  to  the  public  welfare,  through  the  re¬ 
ports  of  appropriate  committees  of  the  House; 
so  modify  Rule  120  that  no  amendment  shall 
be  in  order  changing  existing  laws  in  the 
general  appropriation  bills.  The  danger  of 
pressing  measures  by  tacking  them  to  appro¬ 
priations  and  having  them  carried,  not  by 
their  own  merit,  but  by  the  force  of  the  bill 
to  which  they  are  attached,  is  too  great  to  be 
hazarded. 

In  view  of  the  experience  we  have  had  I 
cannot  see  how  any  member  can  ever  again 
vote  to  put  an  amendment  upon  an  appro¬ 
priation  changing  existing  laws,  however  de- 


4 


f 


sirable  the  change  sought  for  may  appear  to 
him.  I  answer  further,  restore  at  once  the 
proper  and  healthy  action  of  the  various  com¬ 
mittees  upon  their  appropriate  subjects  of 
legislation;  restore  to  them  their  true  posi¬ 
tion,  the  position  they  occupied  before  they 
were  dwarfed  to  give  the  great  power  and 
scope  which  have  been  given  by  that  amend¬ 
ment  to  that  ride  to  the  Appropriation  Com¬ 
mittee. 

I  trust  I  may  be  permitted  to  say  gen¬ 
erally,  that  it  is  our  highest  duty  to  most 


sacredly  regard  both  the  letter  and  spirit  of 
the  Federal  Constitution  and  in  all  our  de¬ 
liberations  here  to  place  public  honor  and 
justice  above  national  wealth  and  power, 
and  the  public  welfare  far  above  personal 
or  party  considerations.  I  owe  this  House 
an  apology  for  not  stating  my  convictions 
earlier  upon  this  question.  I  make  that 
apology  now.  I  do  not  know  the  measure 
of  my  fault,  but  I  am  certain  that  longer 
silence  would  have  been  a  crime. 


FOREIGN  INTERCOURSE. 


Mr.  KASSON.  Mr.  Speaker,  I  rise  mainly 
to  place  upon  record  certain  statistical  infor¬ 
mation  which  I  think  will  be  of  use  to  gentle¬ 
men  who  may  not  have  obtained  it  from  the 
Departments  and  who  may  require  it  in  the 
succeeding  conference.  We  have  two  branches 
of  our  foreign  service:  the  consular  and  the 
diplomatic.  The  consular  service  is  not  paid 
out  of  the  ordinary  funds  of  the  Treasury. 
It  is  paid  by  fees  collected  upon  foreign  mer¬ 
cantile  transactions,  and  should  be  expended 
for  the  benefit  of  the  commerce  of  the  coun¬ 
try.  The  first  statement  I  submit  is  a  com¬ 
parison  of  the  appropriations  for  consular  sal¬ 
aries  from  the  year  1856  to  1875,  showing  also 
how  the  revenue  from  fees  has  grown  with 
the  increase  of  the  consular  service;  the  fees, 
however,  in  the  larger  ratio.  In  1856  the 
salaries  amounted  to  $280,000  in  round  num¬ 
bers,  with  no  report  of  fees.  The  next  year 
the  salaries  amounted  to  $273,750  and  the 
fees  to  $110,802.  From  that  small  beginning 
the  consular  service  appropriation  rose  in  1872 
to  $477,000  as  the  highest  figure,  while  the 
fees  have  increased  to  over  $700,000.  [See 
table.] 

This  statement  is  important  as  showing 
that  the  facilities  we  afford  to  commerce  by 
consular  appointments  are  actually  increasing 
the  revenue  to  the  Treasury;  and  the  effort 
to  abolish  those  consular  appointments  where 
the  fees  are  small  is  like  a  telegraph  com¬ 
pany  abolishing  every  office  on  its  line  that 
does  not  pay  the  expenses  of  its  maintenance. 

Last  year  we  reduced  the  payments  from 
the  figures  of  1872  $333,000,  while  the  fees 
are  about  $700,000.  Hence,  I  maintain  that 
the  destruction  of  the  consular  service  pro¬ 
posed  in  this  bill  is  a  destruction  pro  tanto  of 
the  commercial  interests  of  the  country.  I 
desire  that  the  next  committee  of  conference 


may  bear  in  mind  that  the  consular  service  is 
one  which  merchants  pay  for  and  that  they 
have  a  right  to  demand  its  vigorous  support, 
while  they  also  pay  in  part  for  the  diplomatic 
service. 

Comparison  of  amounts  appropriated  for  con¬ 
sular  salaries  with  the  amounts  of  fees  col¬ 
lected  and  returned  to  the  Fifth  Auditor  of 
the  Treasury  for  the  fiscal  years  named. 


Appropriations. 


Salaries. 


Fees  re¬ 
turned. 


August  1,  1856 . 

February  7,  1857.... 

July  5,  1858 . 

March  3,  1859 . 

May  26, 1860 . 

February  28,  1861... 
February  4,  1862.... 
February  4, 1863.... 

June  20,  1864 . 

January  24,  1865.... 

July  25, 1866..... . 

February  28,  1867... 

March  30,  1868 . 

March  3,  1869 . 

July  11,  1870 . 

February  21,  1871... 

May  22,  1872 . 

February  22,  1873... 

June  11,  1874 . 

February  18,  1875... 


$280,750  00 
273,750  00 

273.750  00 
235,000  00 

268.750  00 
*329,261  97 

351,550  00 
•416,354  34 
■477,500  00 
;  450,000  00 
1425,000  00 
•431,500  00 
■400,000  00 
■400,000  00 
■  376,663  00 
•391,200  00 
416,000  00 
•409,000  00 
364,500  00 
333,200  00 


No  report. 
$110,802  89 
110,896  78 
99,113  23 
77,590  21 


152,982  54 
254,218  34 
287,108  00 
442,  477  56 
424,099  17 
435,179  73 
459,722  43 
534,670  79 
632,258  22 
706,907  95 
746,594  89 
715,202  94 
697,988  49 
J700,000  00 


*This  includes  a  deficiency  of  $54,571.97. 
f  This  includes  loss  by  exchange,  estimated 
at  $45,000  to  $48,000.  The  House  bill  pro¬ 
poses  to  reduce  the  appropriation  for  consular 
salaries  to  $294,900. 

I  Estimated. 


